What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[Guest]

Was William Law really an adulterer? If I recall correctly, this is based on an accusation made by Hyrum at the Nauvoo City Council meeting where they deliberated the fate of the press. If so, I doubt that is a reliable source. Joseph had already lied to convince them to do it so why not Hyrum? Besides, wasn't Hyrum involved in the lie about Sarah Pratt having an affair with John C. Bennet? Didn't Hyrum also lie about the Martha Brotherton affair? I think this shows that Hyrum can hardly be trusted when he accuses people of dastardly deeds in the name of defending polygamy.

[Guest]

Was William Law really an adulterer?

I am not sure why it matters. If Law did commit adultery, that would not somehow make Smith less of an adulterer. Nor does assigning Smith to the category of millenarian prophet. I suppose the fact that Michael Travesser slept with teenage followers is OK because they felt God had commanded them to do it? He too was a millenarian prophet preaching the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God.

[_Analytics]

Joseph Smith's polygamous unions weren't legal marriages. Nor were any one elses'. It doesn't follow, however, that all polygamous relationships are reducible to adulterous sexual liaisons. They were legitimated by religious rather than civil authority: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." You might not accept that authority, but there it is.

By definiton, they were unlawful adulterous sexual liaisons. Adultery is a crime in pretty much every U.S. jurisdiction, as well as grounds for divorce. Adultery means having sex with someone other than your spouse when are legally married. That's also the definition of the law of chastity taught in the temple endowment.

Furthermore, they weren't legitimated by religious authority either: his so-called “marriages” were in flagrant violation of the laws of the Church as written in the Church’s canonized scriptures.

[_Nevo]

I am still uncertain what defining Smith as a millenarian prophet is supposed to accomplish in making your point that the Expositor lied. If he fits a particular scholarly category, that does not make the Expositor wrong or his practice of polygamy truly inspired by God, as you surely recognize.

I wasn't making the point that the Expositor lied. I made that more modest claim that it was slanderous; that it made representations intended to defame and injure Joseph Smith. I also expressed the view that it claimed things that were not true (such as Joseph Smith being an iniquitous monster).

The reference to Joseph Smith as a millenarian prophet was an attempt to contextualize his polygamy—to alert readers to the possibility of interpretations beyond the sex-obssessed "he couldn't keep it in his pants" explanation favored by nearly everyone on this board.

[_Kishkumen]

Furthermore, they weren't legitimated by religious authority either: his so-called “marriages” were in flagrant violation of the laws of the Church as written in the Church’s canonized scriptures.

I think the argument, which I don't buy, is that Smith was above the strictures of the Church he founded because its authority derived from him. It is sort of like the principle in Hellenistic kingship in which the king is the law. Alexander the Great could murder one of his friends with impunity because every one of his acts was, by virtue of his position, legal.

Because Smith claimed that God had commanded him to enter into polygamy, he was within his rights to violate the Church's explicit rules, which were also supposedly divinely imparted, in practicing polygamy. Even though he also violated God's conditions for practicing it repeatedly, the important thing is that God, the source of his authority, commanded him to do it. That is because this violation is between Smith and God. No one else in the organization had any claim on dictating Smith's behavior.

It is an interesting theological position. I wonder whether it applies to the current president of the Church. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a reliable source revealed to a local Utah newspaper that Thomas Monson was currently practicing polygamy. Would the Church consider him above the rules on the grounds that D&C 132 is still in the canon and Monson argued that God had told him to start the practice again? I wonder.

Or does Monson have to be a "millenarian prophet" in order for it to be authorized of God?

[_Darth J]

Furthermore, they weren't legitimated by religious authority either: his so-called “marriages” were in flagrant violation of the laws of the Church as written in the Church’s canonized scriptures.

I think the argument, which I don't buy, is that Smith was above the strictures of the Church he founded because its authority derived from him. It is sort of like the principle in Hellenistic kingship in which the king is the law. Alexander the Great could murder one of his friends with impunity because every one of his acts was, by virtue of his position, legal.

Because Smith claimed that God had commanded him to enter into polygamy, he was within his rights to violate the Church's explicit rules, which were also supposedly divinely imparted, in practicing polygamy. Even though he also violated God's conditions for practicing it repeatedly, the important thing is that God, the source of his authority, commanded him to do it. That is because this violation is between Smith and God. No one else in the organization had any claim on dictating Smith's behavior.

It is an interesting theological position. I wonder whether it applies to the current president of the Church. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a reliable source revealed to a local Utah newspaper that Thomas Monson was currently practicing polygamy. Would the Church consider him above the rules on the grounds that D&C 132 is still in the canon and Monson argued that God had told him to start the practice again? I wonder.

Or does Monson have to be a "millenarian prophet" in order for it to be authorized of God?

And when you reach the point of "whatever our beloved leader does is justified," you're not even pretending not to be a cult.

[Guest]

I wasn't making the point that the Expositor lied.

So the fact that, according to you, the authors and editors of the Expositor deliberately made false statements regarding Smith does not mean that they lied?

It seems to me that a newspaper can make claims that are sensational in tone but substantially true and that it is completely possible that they could use such an argument to prevail in court. If the Expositor claimed that Joseph Smith committed adultery, let's say, and by the definition of the law and his church he actually did, I don't think that would qualify as a slanderous misrepresentation.

It is actually fairly difficult to prove that a newspaper has deliberately printed falsehoods, especially when, by most people's definition, the accusations are fairly accurate and backed up by evidence. The nifty thing about destroying the Expositor is that Joseph Smith could avoid the investigation into the accusations that would arise if he took legal action against the paper. Instead he could change the focus of the case to the legality of the destruction of the press.

Very clever.

I also expressed the view that it claimed things that were not true (such as Joseph Smith being an iniquitous monster).

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the people who endured Joseph's requests and manipulations to enter into relationships that most of Christendom considered iniquitous might come to see the source of these requests as an "iniquitous monster." Really, it is all so subjective, and I doubt it is legally actionable to call someone an iniquitous monster, especially when he is practicing polygamy on the sly against most interpretations of Christian behavior and the law of the land.

The reference to Joseph Smith as a millenarian prophet was an attempt to contextualize his polygamy—to alert readers to the possibility of interpretations beyond the sex-obssessed "he couldn't keep it in his pants" explanation favored by nearly everyone on this board.

Well, maybe having sex with followers is something that millenarian prophets tend to do. That is different from saying that it is OK for them to do it. I mean, if ritual homosexual acts are part of tribal life in New Guinea, is it OK for latter-day saints to participate in them?

[_Fifth Columnist]

The reference to Joseph Smith as a millenarian prophet was an attempt to contextualize his polygamy—to alert readers to the possibility of interpretations beyond the sex-obssessed "he couldn't keep it in his pants" explanation favored by nearly everyone on this board.

Do you believe that other millenarian prophets (e.g., David Koresh and Michael Travessor (a.k.a. Wayne Bent)) engaged in polygamy for reasons other than "he couldn't keep it in his pants?" If so, how is their practice of polygamy materially different from Joseph's?

[_Nevo]

Do you believe that other millenarian prophets (e.g., David Koresh and Michael Travessor (a.k.a. Wayne Bent)) engaged in polygamy for reasons other than "he couldn't keep it in his pants?"

I don't know about Wayne Bent. I think Koresh was, by and large, sincere. I think religious motives did play a role in his polygamy.

But never mind. What's important here is to moralize and pass judgment, not to understand. Polygamy is never OK. Never ever. And God, if he exists, would never command or countenance such an abhorrent practice.

[_Kishkumen]

But never mind. What's important here is to moralize and pass judgment, not to understand. Polygamy is never OK. Never ever. And God, if he exists, would never command or countenance such an abhorrent practice.

I guess that is a matter of opinion. Surely God would have never had William Law reveal the wrongdoings of Joseph Smith, when it became known to him that Joseph was illegally practicing polygamy and instituting a theocracy within the boundaries of the young American Republic. To entertain the possibility would be crazy.